Alex Atamanenko

[Petitions, June 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few petitions here with over 400 signatures from Victoria, Abbotsford, Vancouver, Langley, Ottawa and Manitoba on establishing a department of peace.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to establish a department of peace, headed by a minister of peace as a senior cabinet position, so that this department can reinvigorate Canada's role as a global peace builder and work toward developing a culture of peace and non-violent resolution of conflicts as a top priority.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, June 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is sadly lagging behind other nations in its research funding as a percentage of GDP, and with productivity and research so directly related, how can the government make such drastic cuts to basic research and say with a conscience that it is focused on productivity? Why is the government not listening to the B.C. fruit growers, and others in the agriculture sector, about the need for federal investment and basic long-term research? What is the government's long-term planning process to fill critical research positions at the Summerland Research Station?

[Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciated my colleague's question, and I very much enjoyed working with him on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in the good old days.

I think the member should put the question to the other side of the House. I do not understand the reason for this delayed response. In my opinion, this is not a proactive government. It takes action in response to scandals and pressures instead of taking an appropriate and fair moral stance to try to prevent the problems that arise in the world.

That is what a social democratic government would do.

[Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

In the seven years that I have been here, I have noticed that the large multinational corporations in Canada put a great deal of pressure on the various levels of government to avoid having any legislation, because it is not to their advantage. That is why I am pleased that there is finally a bill that really deals with this issue.

In Canada, we have always had rules, and we still do. Rules exist. Multinational corporations do not follow the rules willingly, but since these rules exist, they comply with them. Corporations in other countries do not have to follow rules, because there are none.

It is therefore up to us to impose rules on our corporations, so that they will comply with them.

[Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

It is always a pleasure to be in a full house. Everyone has flocked to the House of Commons to hear my speech tonight.

This bill is a start. Obviously, New Democrats recommend that the bill go to committee so it can be analyzed, witnesses can be brought in, some of the points ironed out, and hopefully make the bill stronger.

There are four main changes to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act contained in the bill. It increases the maximum sentence of imprisonment applicable to the offence of bribing a foreign public official from 5 to 14 years. It eliminates the exception for so-called facilitation payments where a foreign official is paid to expedite the execution of his or her responsibilities. It creates a new offence for falsifying or concealing books or records in order to conceal bribery of a foreign official. It establishes a national jurisdiction that would apply to all of the offences under the act, such that Canadian nationals could be prosecuted for offences committed overseas.

One of the issues the committee might want to look at is how this would affect various groups and NGOs overseas that are trying to function in a country in which corruption is everywhere. We have seen films in which people are trying to advance through checkpoints and through no fault of their own, they have to pay bribes at illegal roadblocks or whatever, in order to deliver the aid. This bill would certainly tighten up the reaction to that corruption. I am wondering how we would address that situation. Obviously, a strong message would have to be sent to the government of that particular country. I am sure the committee will be looking at that.

There are a couple of points I want to emphasize. One is that we have long supported clear rules requiring transparency and accountability by Canadian individuals and corporations overseas. This bill complements legislative efforts by NDP MPs to encourage responsible, sustainable, and transparent management practices. We acknowledge that the lack of enforcement in Canada with respect to bribery can be considered, to an extent, a national embarrassment. We are pleased that the government is finally responding to this problem. It took a long time, but at least we are on the right track.

Most Canadians want our companies to be successful and responsible representatives of Canada. Canadian companies want clear and consistent standards for international business. In other words, why would we allow an official of a Canadian multinational to act differently in another country than we would allow here? That is what this bill is trying to enforce. We need to enforce loophole-free regulations that will create a level playing field for all companies while ensuring environmental, labour, and human rights protection of which we can all be proud in this country.

We have certain values and standards in this country when we deal with each other. We need to ensure that when we are doing business in other countries, we apply the same values and standards. That is one of the points this bill is driving at.

In a report released in 2011, Transparency International ranked Canada as the worst of all the G7 countries with respect to international bribery. I say this is disgraceful. The organization pointed out that Canada rarely, if ever, enforces its negligible anti-corruption legislation.

Since then, the government has started trying to address this national embarrassment. However, since 1999, there have only been three convictions, two of them in the past two years. When I read that, I was surprised. It seems that we should be in first place with regard to corruption and our fight against corruption.

By eliminating the facilitation payments exception, the bill will bring Canada’s practices in line with 36 of the 39 other OECD countries. That is a good idea.

However, while the rest of the bill comes into effect on royal assent, the rules on facilitation payments will come into effect at an unknown later date, as cabinet wishes.

I am wondering about this point and I hope we will discuss the bill’s mechanism in more detail in committee.

In the United States, the rule on accounting records is already used in civil matters by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Canada has no equivalent regulatory authority, but there is a similar rule in criminal law.

I would also like to point out that the bill is of particular importance for the mining industry, where the NDP has been and is still an ardent defender of accountability. I can cite, for instance, Bill C-323 from the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, which seeks to permit people who are not Canadian citizens to initiate tort claims based on violations of international obligations in Canadian courts.

Furthermore, I can cite Bill C-486 from the member for Ottawa Centre, I think, which requires companies that use minerals from the Great Lakes Region of Africa to exercise due diligence.

The political elite that benefits from corruption, particularly in countries and industries where corruption is rife, is made up primarily of men, which is interesting. At the same time, it is primarily women who lack government protection.

We support this bill and we believe that it must be sent to committee to facilitate discussion, as I just mentioned.

The bill will amend the definition of the term “business” to include the non-profit organizations I mentioned earlier. At committee stage, members will have to study the impact of this provision on charitable organizations and humanitarian relief agencies, which can sometimes be required to make a payment to accelerate the provision of essential aid or to actually obtain aid, something that I also mentioned at the beginning of my speech.

The committee should also determine the impact of making these activities indictable offences that are subject to imprisonment of up to 14 years, because it is a threshold over which conditional discharges, absolute discharges and conditional sentences become impossible. Therefore, the committee really must determine whether 14 years of imprisonment is the right direction to take.

I am going to stop here, and I look forward to all the questions.

[Petitions, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my last petition is from the Toronto area. It calls on Parliament to enact Bill C-257 to require mandatory labelling of all food in which the presence of genetically modified ingredients can be detected.

[Petitions, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition, from the Chilliwack area, has about 200 names. The petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons to work with the provinces to ensure that federal and provincial laws are constructed and enforced that would ensure that those responsible for abusing, neglecting, torturing or otherwise harming animals are held accountable.

[Petitions, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions.

The first one is also on a moratorium on GM alfalfa, from residents of Nelson, Slocan Valley, Kaslo, Castlegar, Rossland, Salmo, Ymir and Ainsworth, in my riding. They are saying that organic farming prohibits the use of genetic modification. They are concerned that contamination by genetically modified alfalfa will destroy the organic industry.

They are calling on Parliament to impose a moratorium on the release of genetically modified alfalfa to allow proper review on the impact on farmers.

[Canada Post, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post is planning to establish private outlets in close proximity to the main post office in rural B.C. This affects the communities of Nelson, Castlegar, Trail, Grand Forks and Oliver.

This is a major step to justify reductions in service at the main office and the eventual privatization of postal services in our rural communities.

There has been no consultation. I have written to the head of Canada Post on behalf of these communities to express my concern.

Will the minister commit today to ensuring Canada Post remains a vital public service?

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is quite a long question, and I will do my very best.

Before I answer, I would like to thank the hon. member for his service to our country. He served our country well, and I am glad to see him in the House. It is a pleasure to have him here.

There is no incongruity. The fact is, we have a bill on paper that the government is planning to put into legislation, but we have existing laws that are working on the ground, and we have seen today that they are able to protect us.

The main point I am trying to make and that others are making is that we should beef up the resources for those people who are working on our behalf under existing legislation. It is there, and it is working.